@HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • edit-223 days agoWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlimagemessage-square122arrow-up1372file-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1372imageWhy make it complicated?lemmy.ml@HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish • edit-223 days agomessage-square122file-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-square@calcopiritus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink14•23 days agoIt’s also valid rust syntax. But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type let a and type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.
minus-square@nebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglish8•23 days agolet a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into() I’ll see myself out.
minus-square@anton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilink4•22 days agoAt least be fair and cut out the .into()
minus-square@nebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglish3•22 days agoAnd bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not! This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.
minus-square@Haradion@lemmy.mllinkfedilink2•16 days agoIf type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
minus-square@nebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglish1•16 days agoLike if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.
minus-squareVictorlinkfedilink1•22 days agoType inference is a pretty big thing in TypeScript as well though. In fact it’s probably the biggest thing about it, IMO.
minus-square@calcopiritus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•22 days agoI don’t know typescript. But if that’s the case, this meme doesn’t make much sense. Who writes the types of variables in a language with type inference unless forced by the compiler?
minus-squareVictorlinkfedilink1•22 days agoMaybe it’s a language without type interference? Either way, it sometimes makes sense in TypeScript to help the type system out a little bit. let array: string[] = []; In this situation, the type system can’t infer that the empty array should be a string array, because there are no items to go by.
It’s also valid rust syntax.
But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type
let aand type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.let a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into()I’ll see myself out.
At least be fair and cut out the
.into()And bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not!
This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.
If type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
Like if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.
Type inference is a pretty big thing in TypeScript as well though. In fact it’s probably the biggest thing about it, IMO.
I don’t know typescript. But if that’s the case, this meme doesn’t make much sense.
Who writes the types of variables in a language with type inference unless forced by the compiler?
Maybe it’s a language without type interference?
Either way, it sometimes makes sense in TypeScript to help the type system out a little bit.
let array: string[] = [];In this situation, the type system can’t infer that the empty array should be a
stringarray, because there are no items to go by.